Statehouse Live: Parkinson says he signed concealed carry expansion to avoid veto showdowns over other issues

Topeka  Gov. Mark Parkinson on Tuesday said he doesn’t like a new law that expands the ability for Kansans to get a permit to carry a concealed gun.

But, Parkinson said, he made a political calculation when he signed it into law.

Parkinson said he feared that if he vetoed it, the Legislature might have tried to override several of his other vetoes.

“I’m just being very honest about it,” he said.

Parkinson said the legislation passed by overwhelming margins, which indicated enough support to muster a two-thirds vote to overturn a veto.

The measure passed 37-2 in the Senate and 103-15 in the House. To override a veto requires 27 votes in the Senate and 84 votes in the House.

During the last legislative session, lawmakers removed several of the reasons the Kansas Attorney General’s Office could deny a concealed-carry permit to an applicant. Essentially, the new law allows anyone who qualifies to possess a gun under federal and state laws to also receive a license to carry it concealed.

As a result, it no longer is permissible to deny a license to a person who has been:

• Convicted of two DUIs during the last five years

• Convicted of carrying under the influence in another state during the last five years

• Documented to have attempted suicide during the last five years

In addition, the new law removed a provision that required concealed-carry license holders to submit to a breath test if a law enforcement officer suspected they were carrying a weapon under the influence. If they refused, they lost their license. Now, license holders must consent to a test only if they’ve shot someone.

The new law, which took effect July 1, has come under criticism from gun control advocates and several legislators who say that perhaps some legislators weren’t aware of the bill’s contents.

Maybe it's just pragmatism. You can't have everything you want, so you take what will give you the most. At least he was honest about his motives instead of trying to fight what he knew would be a losing battle.

Should soneone with 2 DWI ,s be out on the streets ? Jail sounds better.Lets give them a gun, yee haww, make us honest gun owners feel real good about being law obiding people. This states leadership SUCKS. They have no priority of smartness to them. Catchy saying :-)

I also wonder if you were this vocal about persons convicted of two DUIs within the last five years not being automatically classified as habitual violators and having their driver's licenses revoked when the DUI law was written.

The senate referred it to the Federal and State Affairs committee on March 29th, 2010. That committee did not hear it before the session ended. Any motion taken on it will have to be in the next legislative session.

Just a question of time before anyone can carry any gun (concealed or open) into any building. That disgruntled parent at a day care who is unhappy with how his ex is handling child custody issues, the jealous boyfriend who visits a classroom to spy on his girl friend, the college student mad about the grade a teacher gave her, and the suicidal teacher who thinks the college passed her over for tenure one too many times .... If the bill that was proposed last year had passed, many of these people would have been legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon, unless every single entrance and exit of the building had security and/or a scanning device present. The gun rights people have a lot of money and arguments lined up, seeking to make sure that every citizen who wants to do so can take a weapon (concealed or open) with them anywhere they want. Like guns, or not, this is your future. Better start practicing your aim now.

Take a look at a few of the bills from just last session, seeking to expand on who and where and when a gun can be carried/used...This should give you an idea of what we will see again next session. Those who do not want to see the law changed to allow more guns to be taken into all kinds of public places, may do well to contact their law makers NOW and often about this issue. It's going to be a hot topic, for sure.

I would be interested to know how you intend to keep the 'disgruntled parent, jealous boyfriend or suicidal teacher' from sneaking a weapon in without searching everyone or scanning everyone that comes into every building. I have a hard time envisioning any of your examples saying to themselves,"Oh wait! I can't do that, I would be breaking the law!", if their intent was to do an illegal act from the start.

Hey RoeD. You are correct. The change to the law won't have an effect on someone intending to sneak a gun into a building. If someone wants to, they will. However, giving greater and easier access to guns to people with known alcohol problems, and it is only a matter of time before something bad happens. How many times does an alcoholic go into a bar thinking "I'll just have one," or "I'll just sit and not drink at all tonight."? If they have the problem with alcohol, what are the odds they will first rationally think "I better get home and put this gun up" before they irrationally drink themselves to the point where they would get a DUI?

Maybe there should be a 'Three Strikes' policy on DUI's. Loss of all driving privileges, loss of CCW permit, permanent loss of gun ownership (if weapon carried/used while intoxicated), extended jail/prison time. Way, way too often do we hear of deaths resulting from DUI offenders who have six to ten, sometimes more previous convictions. That would have an immediate on traffic deaths.

You're speaking from experience, I assume?~) I also assume this but it is an assumption that will probably not bear much bloody fruit served up by this (likely to be) transitory law.

Hey. Do drunks actually try to GET concealed carry permits? That would seem odd to me but odd is "de rigueur" here, I presume...being me and all!~)

"Yeth, othifer. I want thoo carry a gun. URP! I'll thertainly pasth the teth and all and mbe all fingerprinted an' all....and all."

I tend to assume that murder and manslaughter are totally separate issues from the issuance of concealed carry permits, which probably mean nothing to a "drunk". Is that just me?

It seems as if there is a kind of catch-22 here. If a drunk falls like a tree under the spell of the forest of drink and violence, can you hear it fall or feel it any more deeply in the dark wood under this law?~) I think not. You can't win on either side of this law. Imaginary genies, or other species, never return to their imaginary bottles, or roles, in this world.

Seriously... I would prefer that drunk people not have guns on their persons. That's an easy call, in my book. I would prefer that obviously addled brains not be in control of a firearm and doubt that many believe otherwise. I also doubt it would ever be possible without total government control of our rights as individuals. That said, I certainly don't think the government should make it the least bit easy or APPEAR the least bit "authorized"...yet find myself resigned to the fact that "Que sera sera." and that we have little control of government and the lives of others. This leaves me and many others (feeling) a bit vulnerable. If you don't feel it, then more luck and less power to you. This is not a stable environment we have created. Feel free to try to make it more stable and the best of extreme luck with that.

One thing all the "shoot first, let God sort em out" crowd seems to ignore, is that even if you are completely justified in blasting away some bad guy who breaks into your home in the middle of the night, you are gonna get a hard look from law enforcement, if not arrested for good measure. You might even get sued by the bad guys family who think he was confused/drunk/off his meds and YOU were the bad guy. Is it worth it? Discuss.......

Thanks for ignoring the point.
How about you shoot someone, which is completely justified in your opinion, but it's NOT on your property? Still think the law will just say, "Golly! Thanks for all the help!"?

Right, because there's only ever two options: psycho kill everyone cause it's my right, or namby pamby feel good pacifist.
But thanks for the feel good ride back to Bushies fascist america; "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."

salad you seem lost here, arguing apples against oranges. The article is about concealed carry yet you give scenarios of breaking and entering private dwellings. How about this scenario; If you or anyone forcibly enter my home I will order you ONCE to lay face down on the floor while LE is called. You would determine what happens next. Come through the door displaying or firing a weapon and all bets are off. Have a nice day!

I think that's part of the point, if indirectly. The point being that the logic of having a licensing system in place at all is that if a person wants to carry a concealed gun around then he or she better bloody well be able to demonstrate that he or she can handle that level of responsibility.

The concern is that if we keep lowering the bar for the level of responsible-ness required to carry a concealed gun then eventually someone who was carrying legally will haul off and shoot someone because someone qualified for a license who shouldn't have.